Author: Kanayan Tamar

LeccoNotizie.com, Italia
29 gen 2015

Studenti lecchesi alla Casa Armena, lezione di storia e di vita

di C.Bott.

LECCO – “Questa settimana noi ragazzi di seconda del Liceo scientifico
ci siamo recati in visita a Hay Dun, la Casa Armena di Milano, in
occasione della Giornata della memoria. Rispetto alla Shoah il
genocidio armeno è sottovalutato, principalmente per ragioni
politiche. Ed è proprio per questo che, su proposta del nostro
insegnante di Lettere, abbiamo deciso di approfondire l’argomento”.

Inizia così il resoconto di una giornata che rimarrà impressa a lungo
negli occhi, nel cuore e nei sentimenti degli studenti del Collegio
Volta di Lecco, che nel capoluogo lombardo – oltre ad avere conosciuto
la presidentessa di Casa Armena, Marina Mavian, che ha raccontato loro
la storia avventurosa e quasi incredibile della sua famiglia,
miracolosamente scampata ai massacri – hanno anche incontrato il
professor Aldo Ferrari, armenista dell’Università Ca’ Foscari di
Venezia, esperto di Russia e Caucaso e ricercatore presso l’Istituto
di politica internazionale.

Degli armeni si parla poco, compreso sui libri di scuola, e di loro si
sa qualcosa soltanto del genocidio, mentre pressoché nulla si conosce
della loro storia millenaria. Così il docente ha ritenuto opportuno
colmare questa lacuna, offrendo ai ragazzi una panoramica sulla storia
armena dall’antichità fino all’inizio del ‘900 e ricordando come
l’Armenia storica fosse un grande territorio che si estendeva su zone
ora appartenenti alla Turchia, alla regione del Caucaso e, in parte,
all’Iran.

Ferrari ha altresì evidenziato alcune questioni legate alla Chiesa
armena, appartenente alle Chiese orientali che non hanno accettato il
Concilio di Calcedonia del 451, per poi affrontare il capitolo dei
rapporti tra Cristianesimo e Islam, cruciale dal punto di vista
storico e particolarmente attuale.

“Quando si parla di Islam – ha detto tra l’altro – vi sono due
estremi, entrambi da evitare: una visione “nera”, che dipinge l’Islam
come violento, aggressivo e arretrato, e una visione “rosa” secondo
cui l’Islam è tollerante, aperto e colto. Cosa può dire uno storico?
Di certo l’Islam prevede che le religioni monoteistiche abbiano
diritto all’esistenza: aspetto molto importante, soprattutto se
pensiamo che spesso, nella storia, i cristiani non si sono dimostrati
altrettanto tolleranti”.

Il professor Aldo Ferrari.

“Il professor Ferrari – osservano gli studenti lecchesi reduci
dall’incontro di Milano – ha poi amaramente constatato che, come la
storia insegna, alla discriminazione ci si abitua, ma non ci si può
abituare all’insicurezza quotidiana. E’ proprio questo fattore, ossia
la totale mancanza di sicurezza, ad avere spinto molti armeni a
emigrare, intorno all’XI secolo, sia in Oriente sia in Europa. E come
gli ebrei sono stati per secoli oggetto di invidie, maldicenze e astio
sfociati in qualcosa di tremendo, in un male assoluto”.

I primi gravi episodi ai danni degli armeni avvennero nel biennio
1894-1896. Sono i cosiddetti massacri Hamidiani, dal nome del sultano
Abdul Hamid II, che causarono 200.000 morti. Questi massacri, per
quanto terribili, non possono essere chiamati genocidio in assenza del
decisivo elemento della pianificazione.

Il genocidio avvenne invece nel 1915. “I Giovani turchi al potere dal
1908 – osservano gli studenti del “Volta” – avevano notato che Francia
e Germania erano Paesi forti e abitati da popolazioni etnicamente
omogenee, mentre l’impero era un vero e proprio mosaico di popoli. La
loro idea era omogeneizzare lo Stato, un progetto politico
inevitabilmente criminale. E l’occasione fu offerta loro dallo scoppio
della prima guerra mondiale”.

A Costantinopoli vivevano 200mila armeni, ma fu uccisa soltanto
l’élite. La ragione era che lì si trovavano tutte le ambasciate
straniere, per cui non si poteva fare uno sterminio eccessivo. Per
primi furono eliminati gli uomini adulti arruolati, fucilati o fatti
morire di fatica. Donne, vecchi e bambini furono invece deportati,
destinazione il deserto siriano. Un’intera popolazione fu spazzata
via. Gli armeni della regione che dagli stessi turchi era chiamata
Ermenistan sono stati totalmente cancellati e oggi gli armeni in
Turchia sono 40.000, tutti a Istanbul. Nella vecchia Armenia non ce
n’è neppure uno.

“Ci è stato spiegato – concludono gli studenti lecchesi – che il
genocidio fu criminale, feroce, spietato ma razionale a differenza
della Shoah, che ha avuto elementi di follia tipicamente nazisti. Al
termine della splendida lezione siamo tornati alle nostre case con una
domanda: cosa spinge l’uomo a commettere azioni così atroci e
“disumane”? Noi possiamo soltanto continuare a studiare il passato, a
ricordarlo e a lavorare quotidianamente per costruire un mondo
migliore, in cui a tutti sia riconosciuta la piena dignità di esseri
umani”.

Aleteia- Italia
28 gen 2015

Francesco: una Messa in ricordo del genocidio degli armeni

Sarà celebrata il 12 aprile a S. Pietro per il centenario di Metz
Yeghern, il “Grande Male”. Tensione tra Armenia e Turchia a proposito
delle celebrazioni

Chiara Santomiero

Il 24 aprile del 2015 ricorre il centenario dell’inizio del massacro
di un milione e mezzo di armeni ad opera del governo dei Giovani
Turchi del padre della moderna Turchia, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Gli
armeni lo indicano come Metz Yeghern, il “Grande Male”.

Nell’ambito della commemorazione, in Italia e nel mondo di questi
avvenimenti, papa Francesco, secondo quanto stabilito dal calendario
delle celebrazioni presiedute dal pontefice tra febbraio e aprile,
celebrerà una Santa Messa a S. Pietro per i fedeli di rito armeno alle
ore 10 del 12 aprile, domenica della Divina Misericordia.

GENOCIDIO O STERMINIO?

Gli storici non sono ancora d’accordo sull’attribuzione della
definizione di “genocidio” (riconosciuta in presenza di precise
caratteristiche della persecuzione contro “un gruppo nazionale,
etnico, razziale o religioso”), ma in molti ritengono che lo sterminio
della popolazione armena di Istanbul e in tutta l’area dell’ex impero
ottomano sia stato il preludio a ognuno dei grandi massacri del
Novecento, dalla Shoah, ricordata il 27 gennaio con la Giornata della
memoria, al massacro di Srebenica (8 mila musulmani inermi uccisi dai
serbi) del conflitto nella ex Yugoslavia e del quale quest’anno
ricorrerà il ventennio.

Secondo Raz Segal, 39enne storico dell’Università di Tel Aviv che da
anni studia i paralleli e le differenze tra diversi genocidi:
(L’Espresso 27 gennaio).

IL NEGAZIONISMO TURCO

La Messa presieduta da papa Francesco il 12 aprile si inserisce tra le
numerose commemorazioni che si sono aperte ufficialmente in Armenia
nei giorni scorsi e che dureranno per tutto l’anno. Il prossimo 23
aprile il patriarca armeno ortodosso Karekin II presiederà la
canonizzazione di massa di un milione e mezzo di uomini, donne e
bambini armeni morti a causa della loro appartenenza etnica e
religiosa. Nella lettera enciclica scritta per l’occasione Karekin ha
ricordato che “nel 1915 e negli anni successivi un milione e mezzo di
nostri figli e figlie ha subito la morte, la fame, la malattia; è
stato deportato e costretto a camminare fino alla morte” (Il
Sismografo 27 gennaio).

Il patriarca ha sottolineato il mancato riconoscimento del genocidio
da parte delle istituzioni turche, dai tempi del fondatore Ataturk
fino all’attuale presidente Erdogan, cui si accompagna una “negazione
criminale della Turchia”, cioè un’opera attiva di negazionismo.

“GUERRA” DI COMMEMORAZIONI

Per la Turchia è difficile riconoscere degli eventi storici la cui
crudeltà coinvolge gli stessi padri fondatori della moderna
repubblica. Qualche apertura diplomatica verso l’Armenia non ha mai
preso in considerazione la possibilità di riconoscere il “genocidio”:
per i turchi le vittime furono “solo” 350 mila e per la maggior parte
morirono per “tragica fatalità” durante i trasferimenti coatti della
popolazione armena nell’est del Paese.

L’anno scorso, tuttavia, in occasione del 24 aprile e della memoria
del “Grande Male”, il presidente Erdogan inviò un messaggio con il
quale offrì le condoglianze ai discendenti degli armeni morti “nelle
circostanze dell’inizio del XX secolo”, specificando che “è un dovere
umano capire e condividere la volontà degli armeni di commemorare le
loro sofferenze durante quel periodo”.

Quest’anno, nel timore delle ricadute politiche delle celebrazioni che
si svolgeranno a Yerevan il 24 aprile prossimo, il governo turco ha
deciso di anticipare di due giorni l’anniversario della vittoria nella
battaglia dei Dardanelli del 1915 (di solito ricordata il 25 aprile)
proponendo a 102 capi di Stato e di governo – tra cui il presidente
armeno Serzh Sargsyan – un vertice per la pace a Istanbul proprio il
24 aprile. “Un tentativo grossolano – lo ha definito nella risposta a
Erdogan il presidente armeno – di distrarre l’attenzione della
comunità internazionale dalla commemorazione del centennale del
genocidio armeno”.

IL “GIORNO DELLE MEMORIE”

Di fronte alla “contabilità” dei morti e ai contorcimenti diplomatici,
assume maggior significato la proposta dello scrittore Moni Ovadia che
vorrebbe trasformare la “Giornata della memoria” istituita il 27
aprile in ricordo delle vittime della Shoah che non furono solo ebrei
ma anche “rom, antifascisti, omosessuali, menomati, Testimoni di
Geova, slavi, emarginati, militari che rifiutarono di piegarsi ai
nazifascisti” in “Giorno delle memorie”. “La nuova denominazione –
scrive lo scrittore – dovrebbe riorientare le manifestazioni, gli
studi, l’edificazione della casa della Memoria come laboratorio della
cultura di pace, di giustizia, di uguaglianza nel ricordo di tutti i
genocidi e degli stermini di massa” (gariwo.net).

Cihan News Agency, Turkey
Jan 30 2015

Armenian genocide denial case comes before ECtHR

ISTANBUL – 30.01.2015 08:56:30

Last week I was talking to a law professor from the US. To give him a
glimpse into the level of nationalism found in Turkey, I said, `Just
look at how all these Turkish people with different worldviews around
this table unite when I say something.’ Then I proceeded to say,
`Turkey still denies the Armenian genocide.’ Just as I had predicted,
the professor witnessed quite a heated debate over my words.

Most people in Turkey united behind DoÄ?u Perinçek in his case before
the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on Tuesday. It’s a long
story, but for those of you who do not know the Perinçek v.
Switzerland case, it can be summarized as follows: During a conference
in Switzerland, Perinçek said that the `Armenian genocide is an
international lie.’ He was given a prison sentence and fine under
Swiss laws punishing the denial of genocide. According to these laws,
to my understanding, denying any genocide constitutes hate speech or
racism.

Perinçek brought this case to the ECtHR, and the ECtHR found that he
breached Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights
regulating freedom of expression. This past Thursday an appeal hearing
on the case was held in Strasbourg.

I am personally a little ambivalent about punishing the denial of any
genocide unless the words concerned clearly constitute hate speech
targeting a certain vulnerable group. When it comes to freedom of
expression, the stakes are too high, and therefore limitations to it
should really be exceptional.

However, when I look at the comments and reactions to the case in
Turkey, I see that people see this case as the ECtHR’s refusal to
define the events of 1915 as genocide. People in Turkey should focus
on another case: the Taner Akçam v. Turkey case, in which the ECtHR
criticized and condemned Turkey for limiting the debate on Armenian
genocide with prosecution and the threat of prosecution under the
infamous Article 301 that prohibits `denigrating Turkishness.’

If people genuinely defend Perinçek’s freedom of expression concerning
the Armenian genocide, they should then defend people in Turkey who
claim that what happened in 1915 was genocide.

When it comes to freedom of expression, as I said above, there is a
clear and undisputable exception to it that should be banned and
punished: hate speech and threats. Just remember how `The Cut,’ a film
shot by Fatih Akın whose central theme is the events of 1915, was
received in Turkey. Even before it was shown in cinemas, Akın and
Agos, the Armenian-Turkish weekly that interviewed him about the film,
were openly threatened by several ultranationalist organizations. In
some of these threats posted on Twitter they even dared to say, `We
are watching you with our white berets.’ This was a reference to the
fact that Hrant Dink’s murderer was wearing a white beret when he shot
Dink from behind. I have not heard about anyone being arrested for
these threats. When Akın’s film hit theaters, only viewers above the
age of 18 were allowed to watch it.

You see, if we really wish to discuss `freedom of expression’ and the
Armenian genocide debate, there is still a long way to go in Turkey.
And focusing on the Perinçek case, in which the ECtHR rejected using a
prison sentence to punish genocide denial, would not bring anyone in
Turkey closer to furthering freedom of expression or enriching
democracy in this country.

ORHAN KEMAL CENGÄ°Z

EurasiaNet.org
Jan 30 2015

Azerbaijan: Are Rumors Replacing News in Azerbaijan?

January 30, 2015 – 1:33pm, by Nargiz Rashid

The media climate is growing so grim in Azerbaijan that some observers
are reminded of an old Soviet-era adage that just about the only safe
topic for public discussion is the weather.

A government crackdown over the past year, carried out in the wake of
the Euromaidan revolution that toppled the government in Ukraine, has
muzzled independent voices and public critics of President Ilham
Aliyev’s administration in Azerbaijan.

The crackdown is continuing unabated. Earlier in January, the
alternative news site Mediaforum.az announced its closure. It blamed
complicated new requirements for receiving grants; rules, it alleged,
had prevented the site from receiving financing. The online entity
Channel 13, which once posted some 15 video stories a day, also has
shut down.

“Our bank accounts were frozen and we could not receive money from our
donors,” Channel 13’s former general manager, Anar Orujov, told
EurasiaNet.org. “We had to stop working.” Orujov now studies abroad.

Other outlets have been forced to close offices in Baku and shift
operations outside Azerbaijan.

One of the main sources of in-depth news about Azerbaijan, the
US-government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL), now
covers the country only out of its headquarters in Prague. In late
December 2014, representatives of the general prosecutor’s office
raided and shut RFERL’s Baku bureau. Some 40 reporters were forcibly
detained and interrogated without the presence of a lawyer.

Prior to the closure of RFERL’s bureau, Berlin-based Meydan TV, an
outlet known for outspoken criticism of the Aliyev administration,
opted to close its own Baku office in an effort to shield its
reporters from official harassment.

The action against RFERL followed the December 5 arrest of RFERL
investigative reporter Khadija Ismayilova on charges of inciting an
attempted suicide. [Editor’s note: Ismayilova also has worked for
EurasiaNet.org]. Ismayilova and international media watchdogs maintain
the arrest was politically motivated. On January 27, a court extended
Ismayilova’s pre-trial detention by two months, until April 5.

Officials and government supporters dispute the notion that the Aliyev
administration strives to cut off the free flow of information. Zahid
Oruj, an unaffiliated MP who tends to support ruling Yeni Azerbaijan
Party positions, insisted that foreign-funded media organizations such
as RFERL do not enjoy a sufficient level of popularity among Azeri
listeners to be a concern to the government. Oruj also claimed that
the new restrictions on foreign financing for non-governmental
organizations are intended promote transparency.

Meanwhile, at a recent news conference in Berlin, President Aliyev
declared that freedom of speech in Azerbaijan is “guaranteed 100
percent.”

To buttress their claims, Aliyev and others point out that roughly
three-quarters of Azerbaijan’s roughly 9.42 million citizens have
Internet access. Outside reports on Azerbaijani media, however,
contend that while greater freedom exists in social media, residents
outside of urban centers still have relatively limited access to the
Internet. And prosecution for criticism of the government, even on
social media networks, is an ever-present risk.

Despite the inhospitable operating environment, Mehman Aliyev,
director of the Turan news agency, a regular government critic, holds
out hope that free speech will prevail. Azerbaijani citizens widely
use social media to share the views of those who think independently
from the government, he noted. A video of expatriate Azerbaijani
blogger Habib Muntazir shouting in Berlin at President Aliyev, calling
on the president to free political prisoners is one case in point.
“There will be new alternatives to emerge,” predicted Turan’s Aliyev.
Closing the country’s “information space” will “not be possible.”

While the Internet may indeed be untamable, that’s not stopping the
government from trying to harness it, according to independent
political analyst Zardusht Alizade. “There are lots of new websites
that have emerged and are mostly funded by the government itself to
fill in the information gap and manipulate public opinion,” Alizade
said. The government’s goal with these websites, he claimed, is to “to
manipulate information as was done during the Soviet era.”

Under the circumstances, Internet-borne rumors can sometimes gain the
currency of news. This trend is particularly noticeable concerning
developments on the frontline separating Azerbaijani and Armenian
forces, said Aynur Elgunesh, a journalist who is now at Meydan TV
after working for 17 years in Azerbaijani print media. Although a
ceasefire technically governs the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Armenian
and Azerbaijani troops routinely engage in firefights along the
frontline.

“Rumors from the frontline have become, I’d say, more credible for
readers than [reports from] news media.” said Elgunesh.

Editor’s note:
Nargiz Rashid is a pseudonym for a freelance journalist who
specializes in covering Azerbaijan.

Analyst: It is the military-political balance rather than the Russian
base that defends Armenia against Turkey
by David Stepanyan

Friday, January 30, 18:03

It is the military-political balance rather than the 102nd Russian
military base that defends Armenia against Turkey, political analyst
Saro Saroyan has told ArmInfo.

“It is accepted in Armenia and Russia to present Russians and the
102nd Russian military base as the only guarantor of Armenia’s
security. I think it is time to dispel that false stereotype. Turkey
cannot undertake any aggression against Armenian people, disregarding
the current military-political balance in the world. Such aggression
will inevitably break the global balance and will probably lead to
punishment of its initiator”, says the analyst.

Saroyan stressed that there are dozens of small states like Armenia,
which also repose on balance. So, under the current conditions, the
analyst thinks that Turkey may display aggression against Armenia only
if that aggression is sanctioned by NATO. This will become possible
only in case Yerevan suddenly spoils its relations with the West. But
no such a thing is observed, fortunately.

The analyst also points out the absolute lack of problems between
Turkey and Russia and the current problems between Turkey and the
West, particularly, the problems of Iraq, Syria, Kurds, and ISIS.
“Therefore, Turks cannot simply attack Armenia for no special reason
as much as they would like to do”, he says.
The 102nd Russian military base was officially deployed in Armenia in
1995 under an Armenian-Russian interstate agreement.

Amal Clooney, Renee Zellweger and the best responses to those endless,
anodyne questions about fashion and aestheticism

Great responses from women, at events to promote their jobs, to those
fashion and beauty queries that the men don’t seem to receive

JENN SELBY
Friday 30 January 2015

Amal Clooney happens to be married to an extremely famous man.

She also happens to be a woman.

As such, after being thrust in front of the media spotlight for said
relationship with said man, she now has her looks routinely
scrutinised while she casually carries on being one of the world’s top
human rights lawyers.

Her witty and withering response to one reporter’s question about her
fashion choices as she appeared in the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR) in Strasbourg earlier this week was priceless.

`I’m wearing Ede & Ravenscroft,’ she said.

Feminist quotes from the icons to inspire you

She was there to represent Armenia in their case against DoÄ?u
Perinçek, the leader of the Turkish Workers’ Party. For a little
background, Perinçek was convicted of denying the 1915 Armenian
genocide in 2007 and Clooney is arguing on an appeal before the ECHR,
which ruled in favour of the man, Dogu Perincek, in December 2013.

Here are some more great responses from women, at events to promote
their jobs, to those endless, sexist questions about their aesthetics.

Armenia’s economy must be ready for any scenario, says premier

14:15 * 30.01.15

The globally observed economic war forces Armenia’s economy to be
ready to face any scenario, Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamyan said today
as he addressed the cabinet meeting.

“We have created a working group headed by [Vice Premier and Minister
of International Economic Integration and Reforms Vache] Gabrielyan,
and it includes representatives from all the interested ministries,”
he said, asking Mr Gabrielyan to elaborate on their activities.

Responding to the premier, the minister first stressed the need of
ensuring currency flows, considering it an important measure to
increase the economy’s resistance and to enhance the defense sector.

“In particular, there is a draft law on export promotion, which has
been sent to the National Assembly. Additionally, we have also
envisaged steps towards attracting other resources. So, from this
point of view, this measure is very important. It addresses
opportunities of bringing money from foreign markets,” he said, noting
that the domestic bonds’ turnover has a higher interest rate on the
secondary market.

Mr Gabrielyan said that they also have plans to attract investors in
infrastructure programs.

He added that the ministry also discussed procedures for regulating
the currency market, focusing particularly on a concept paper
addressing currency exchange units’ price policies and anti-trust
commissions’ possible reactions to price surges.

“These measures are especially important in terms of attracting
resources from investors,” the minister added.

Small business owners demand to cancel revised law on sales tax

YEREVAN, January 30. / ARKA /. Several hundreds of Armenian small
vendors gathered again today outside the government building to
protest against the revised law on turnover tax that comes into force
from February 1.

The revised law has lowered the turnover tax for vendors with annual
sales of up to 58 million drams ($125,000) from 3.5 percent to 1
percent, but small business owners will have to provide tax
authorities with documentary evidence of their wholesale purchase
deals with larger firms or face heavy fines. The government argues the
change is meant to crack down on tax evasion by big business, but
vendors say they cannot comply with this requirement because their
suppliers usually refuse to provide them with receipts and invoices

Yesterday small business owners marched from the government building
to the presidential residence blocking for a brief time the main road
in downtown Yerevan. Police had to use force to unblock the road.
Today the protesters threatened to shift to ‘radical measures’ unless
their voice is heard by the government, saying they would file
applications en mass to suspend their activity demanding also a
meeting with prime minister Hovik Abrahamyan.

The prime minister Abrahamyan agreed to meet with 15 protesters, the
government press office reported. It quoted Abrahamyan as saying that
the government will not make any steps that run counter to the
interests of the society.

Representatives of small businesses were said to have suggested that
the revised law on sales tax become voluntary, that the minimum annual
sales ceiling be raised and that the number of inspections by tax
authorities be cut.

Before wrapping up the meeting the head of the government said all the
proposals would be discussed by the government and presented to the
society.

In a related development, deputy finance minister Vakhtang Mirumyan
said the ministry has reached a compromise with small business owners.
Speaking at a cabinet session he said small vendors will not have to
provide ‘detailed list of goods” and will have to indicate only
‘categories of goods.’ He said the ministry has developed a clear-cut
inventory procedure for this.

Mirumyan said concessions are provided for cases where traders
purchase goods directly from foreign suppliers, but bring them in by
forwarding companies and therefore can not provide invoices of
suppliers.
He said small business owners will be freed also from providing
documentary evidence for buying agricultural products for resale.

“In fact, we observe all our arrangements and we have no information
about new demands by small business owners,’ he said.-0-

David Usupashvili: We don’t discuss the issue of Abkhazian railway

Georgian Parliament speaker David Usupashvili
Photo: REUTERS/David Mdzinarishvili
Interviews | January 30, 2015 12:16
exclusive

Mediamax’s exclusive interview with Speaker of the Parliament of
Georgia David Usupashvili

Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia David Usupashvili will visit
Armenia on February 1. On the eve of the visit he talked to Mediamax.

– In an interview with our news agency in January 2013, former
Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili said it is necessary to
duly assess the “huge potential for the development of cooperation
between Armenia and Georgia and to elaborate a new and multichannel
strategy for interaction”. In your opinion, to what extent do the
parties employ that potential today?

– First of all, profiting by this occasion I would like to thank my
Armenian counterpart Galust Sahakyan for the invitation. It will be my
second visit to Armenia in the rank of the Georgian Parliament’s
Speaker and this fact itself also attests to our friendly and
good-neighborly ties.

Before proceeding to the question, I would like to extend my
condolence to entire Armenia over the Gyumri tragedy. The slaughter of
an entire family, including infants is not the tragedy of only the
Armenian people but also the humanity. This tragedy was horrifying for
the Georgian community – we all filled with severe resentment and
pain.

As to greater use of cooperation potential, it should be noted that
our intergovernmental ties are many-sided. The transit infrastructure
of Georgia is vital for Armenia. The “basilar artery” between Armenia
and Russia passes through Georgia. Georgia offers Armenia sea access
and access to the world economic space from where it gets virtually
all sorts of goods and utilities. Armenia uses the same roads to
export its products to Russia and other countries. All of this implies
effective cooperation in such a sector of the economy as transport.
Armenia and Georgia trade in agriculture, raw materials and
construction materials, and tourism is intensively developing.

Traditionally, coffee from Armenia as well as exotic fruit juice used
to sell well at Tbilisi stores. But when the Armenian grape appeared
on the counters we started thinking – shouldn’t we reconsider our
trade ties? But we were then “lulled” – you cannot make wine from it,
thus it will not compete with the Georgian. Just kidding!

Now getting in earnest about the matter – let’s cast a glance at the
numbers. We registered 50% increase in trade turnover between our
countries in 2013. Growth dynamics was observed in 2014 as well, even
though the potential was not explored fully. For instance, what about
carrying out several economic projects in overall regional context? It
would make our products more competitive in the world market. Or, what
if Armenian and Georgian tour operators offer a package to foreign
tourists, which will also include visiting the neighboring country?
This might result in significant increase in tourist flows to the
region. But it requires thorough study of all the spheres, careful
consideration of such ideas, correct calculation of everything and
in-depth analysis in order to define the niche the Caucasian product
can gain worldwide.

Certain steps have already been taken to this end, and mutual
high-level visits are not the only “evidence” of it. Last October the
chairpersons of the committees of the parliaments of both countries
had a meeting, the sitting of the Intergovernmental Commission on
Economic Cooperation between Armenia and Georgia was held, and joint
task forces on economic affairs were set up. All of this points to the
clear desire by the legislative and executive powers of our countries
to ramp up cooperation on not only general policy matters but also at
sectorial level.

– Armenia and Georgia are engaged in different integration projects –
Armenia has joined the EEU, while Georgia has signed the Association
Agreement with the EU and want to become NATO member. In one of your
interviews you stated that the difference in foreign policies should
be used in an effort to converge. How can it be applied in practice?

– The foreign policy alignment of our countries indeed differs.
Georgia signed the EU Association Agreement, whereas Armenia entered
the Russia-formed EEU. Our countries join international organizations
on their own volition depending on their interests and considering the
mutual relations with the friendly states. I can assure you that
Georgia does not enter any organization that might infringe upon its
sovereignty. We hope that despite its EEU membership Armenia will
preserve a degree of independence that will enable us to persist with
our cooperation without third-party intervention.

Our countries have obtained wide practice in this regard.
Historically, the Caucasus region was in the center of geopolitical
battles and was under the pressure of empires. Despite that, our
ancestors, regardless of what the empires aspired, were wise enough to
maintain good-neighborliness and eventually show the door to the
unbidden guests. This practice should be taken into account. Despite
current political realities, countries in the South Caucasus should
accurately identify the best development prospects for our region and
have a clear account of the future and progress. They should also
clearly determine where fights with the ghosts of the past as well as
restriction of freedom occur in our region. If we make a right choice
based on values, and if we clearly define the goals and tasks, we will
then overcome current challenges through cabals and will not only not
harm the historic traditions of good-neighborliness but on the
contrary, will also support one another’s development.

Georgia’s former PM Bidzina Ivanishvili, Patriarch Ilia II and
Parliament speaker David Usupashvili
Photo: REUTERS/David Mdzinarishvili

I would like to underline that Georgia’s European and Euro-Atlantic
choice was accounted not only by its own prospects but also by the
development prospects of the entire region. After all, the involvement
of the South Caucasus into the political-economic boundaries of Europe
suggests a better future for all its inhabitants. Thus, the free trade
area agreement between Georgia and Armenia opens doors to one of the
largest and steadiest markets for not only Georgia but also Armenia
and the entire region, on the whole. The closer the EU is to the
Armenian borders, the easier it will be for Armenia to supply its
goods to the EU market. We do not view our agreement with the EU as an
obstacle in our relations with Armenia. We believe Georgia will become
a bridge linking the EU and the entire region by shortening the way
leading to European benefits. I hope Armenia’s EEU membership also
sprang up from such principles. The rest depends on the skills of our
entrepreneurs.

– From time to time, the possible restoration of railway communication
through Abkhazia, which is of utmost importance for Armenia in order
to breach the transit blockade, outcrops. Do Georgian authorities
stand ready to discuss it separately from the political issues of the
settlement of Georgian-Abkhazian conflict?

– The restoration of railway communication in Abkhazia indeed
regularly becomes relevant in media. We understand Armenia’s interest
in the restoration of railway communication with Russia, however,
Georgia does not discuss this issue. No governmental department holds
talks to this end. This issue cannot be viewed out of the context of
Russia’s relations with the occupied region of Georgia – Abkhazia.

Apparently, the so-called “allied treaty” recently signed between
Russia and occupied Abkhazia adversely affects the discussion of that
matter and so does the divergence of views on the UN resolution on the
“Status of Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees from Abkhazia and
the Tskhinvali region”.

– Baku-Tbilisi-Kars new railway might also open a window of
opportunities for Armenia but there are opinions that Turkey and
Azerbaijan might influence Georgia to “drive out” Armenia, for the
latter not to benefit from the railway. What do you have to say on
this?

– Georgia’s relations with other countries in the trade-economic,
educational, medical or any other sector is regulated by relevant
agreements and laws. The Georgian government is free from informal
pressures and acts with regard to its own interests. In this respect,
it is needless to say Ankara or Baku might affect Tbilisi’s stance.
Had there been such pressure, the variety of products Armenia
currently receives through Georgia, would not reach it.

– April 24 marks the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide committed in
Ottoman Turkey. Should we expect any statement or declaration by the
Georgian Parliament on this?

– The response to Gyumri massacre showed once again that the Georgian
people feel pained at the grief of Armenian people and beyond doubt,
the ethnic cleansing in the early 20th century is a huge tragedy the
Armenian people went through. Darting a glance at the modern history
of Georgia you will see that the pain of ethnic cleansing is not alien
to us.

As to your question, I think we should not expect new approaches or
Georgian parliament’s statements on this issue.

Ara Tadevosyan talked to David Usupashvili

Analysis: ‘Odd’ Armenian vote on anti-Russian resolution at PACE

Analysis | 30.01.15 | 10:47

By Naira Hayrumyan
ArmeniaNow correspondent

On January 28, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE) adopted a resolution on Ukraine, one of the points of which was
stripping the Russian delegation of its voting rights at the
Strasbourg-based body.

The Armenian delegation, on the whole, abstained in the vote on the
resolution, even though in the point-by-point vote it voted against
depriving Russia of its rights at the PACE.

This behavior of Armenia was a little odd if not a ‘nonsense’, because
for some time now official Yerevan not only has supported Russia in
all areas of foreign policy, but, according to some experts, has even
been its “second voice”. Thus, for example, last year Armenia was
among only 11 nations, most of them believed to be “rogue states”,
that voted against a UN resolution condemning the annexation of the
Crimea by Russia.

Russia is exposed to tough sanctions from the West because of its
position in the Ukraine crisis. The sanctions involve not only
economic, financial and technological restrictions, but also political
isolation. In particular, Russia is deprived of its voting rights at
the PACE, NATO and a number of other organizations have suspended
their cooperation with Moscow.

Armenia, which publicly and privately coordinates its foreign policy
with Russia, was in a difficult situation. Excessive support for
Russia could lead to a situation in which Armenia itself would be in
isolation and deprived of the support that it now gets from Western
nations.

For now the West “understands” the heavy dependence of Armenia on
Russia. In particular, during a joint press conference in Berlin with
visiting Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev earlier in January German
Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed that no sanctions are being
prepared against Armenia. Answering the question of an Azerbaijani
journalist about why no sanctions are imposed against Armenia which is
an ally of Russia and is also engaged in “occupying” actions, the
German leader said, evasively, that although Armenia coordinates some
steps with Russia, there will be no sanctions against this country.

The Armenian delegation to the PACE went to Strasbourg not in full
membership – representatives of the Prosperous Armenia Party and the
Armenian National Congress, which do not hide their pro-Eurasian
orientation, said they were sick and stayed in Armenia. Those who
abstained during the vote on the anti-Russian resolution were
representatives of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia and the
Orinats Yerkir Party. And it allowed many in Armenia to argue that the
ruling party in Armenia, despite the country’s joining the Russian-led
Eurasian Economic Union, continues a pro-Western course.

It is remarkable that Armenia, despite its close relationship with
Russia, continues active cooperation with NATO and also intends to
deepen its relations with Europe. After a meeting with Armenian
Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian earlier this month, EU Commissioner
for European Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Johannes Hahn said
that the political part of the Association Agreement between Armenia
and the European Union was being prepared for signing. This signing
may happen on May 22 during the next Eastern Partnership summit in
Riga, Latvia.